Telegram-herald., 1887-10-04
THEY IRE EAJO|NED.
REFERRING 10 rs E0soN FoLss.
S1axs s~s~rsas' ostste@ T. tas Case a.
tAs EAsetza< Lagos . - Tie Ea.
ss ceasiss.@y's lssnAsarrer ~
BE zrs1xa.

i1xs ssyeseas e2als frona Kalamazoo yes-
ssfday toF tAs eHpssss parpass u rsnasrias
el> 1seasloa = tAs ass u tas s.selrse oom-
psniss nss p<aelng II ths f'Rissd SsStss
e,afI TIE oBinien VAS AAEdsd dosa
about -'e.oek 10 Tia afternoon. L Is .
lsngthy sna elsooratsly written document.
Ia saes1anee It hold.
First, Tat although bod, Of the ea1n-
pzniez 4fs fesidsaH os Grsnd Rapids. vel
tie tsoesss court las jaFisd.esion becsass II
The Old company ordin&A& : invalid Il
Is protested ey ths Jaitsd states eonsSitu-
ton nom any impairment, thst document
IN effect saying that nostste. either through
Us Legislature or Coalmon Counol acting
0ader the authority OF the legislature, can
pass any subsequent laws that initiate
sgainst tee irst one granted. The mooisd
point seems 10 have been whether al o4oi-
nance oi cisy las saffsoisn, d8gniiy 10 give
IL The cAxracieF OF slate legislation Tie
court holds that these ordinances under tie
color OF the State authority are, Ia effect
laws ot The State and the cc0rg referred 10
ne thinese laundry ordinances IA san
FRANCISCO. ana some other cases IN the
In the federal courts.
Second. The Court held that the old
conpanys ordinances unquestionabiy in
tended TO grant The exclusive right 10 use
the streets for nfteen years. and that the
only serious question in the case was
wnetner the Council had power 10 pass the
hrsl oruinsnce. While this kind of grants
are 10 be strictly construed vet this rule
should not be pressed 10 the extent Of de-
ieating manifest intention OF the Legis-
iatnre and this Was particularly to be
observed III considering charters Of munich
pal corporations. The policy Of this State
las unformiy been TO delegate 10 munich
palilies iull power and discretion In regard
10 matters OF purely local concern, anu the
courts have shown a disposition 10 be liber-
al IN this respect, aud IL is diricllt to see
why the Sie.e should wish TO reserve to IL
sell the power 10 settle whether a franchise
OF this nature should or should not be
given. The Court applying the language of
the charter TO the circumstances SHOWN by
the bill, The grant being one OF public
benefit and service. having been made in
order TO induce the company to expend its
money, and large amounts of money hay-
ing been expended upon the fstn of il.
ana the whole thing seeming in its general
views beng for the public GOOD and no
particular evils appearing, the Court con-
cluded, under all the circumstances of the
case that power Is fairly 10 be implied in
the city charter to grant the first original
ordinance, and that consequently, there
was no power 10 grant the second TO the
Edison company since ii impaired the first,
aud the Court accordingly ordered an in |
junction.
Judge Severens remarked that owing TO |
the importance of the question To the par |
ties as we'll as 10 the public be would, in !
case the counsel for the Edison Company |
desired, have the demurrer 10 the bill |
which the Edison Company has filed in |
tie case brought on for immediate argu- |
ment at Cincinnati before Judge Jackson |
and himself. The case will undoubtedly |
take this course, as the TELEGRAM HERALD
Is advised in an interview with Blair,
Kingsley Kleinhans. counsel for the old |
company.
Mr.. Smiley, counsel for the Edison COM
pany, offered to give bonds 10 meet snv
damages, II the court would allow the new
company to proceed. This was declined
for the present.